6 ms·

This isn't quite right, although it's close. The question isn't whether or not a politician has the right to block. It's whether or not a politician, acting as

by ABCLAW 8y ago

This isn't quite right, although it's close. The question isn't whether or not a politician has the right to block. It's whether or not a politician, acting as a politician, has the right to block. If the individual had a private account with family and friends, they wouldn't be subject to these rules, but to the extent that the account is used in an official capacity, then administrative law kicks in with its restrictions against arbitrary and capricious decisions. Full brief here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-fourth-circuit-says-virginia-politicians-facebook-page-public-forum-and-first-amendment https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-fourth-circuit-says-vir...

tptacek 8y ago
Administrative law? I don't see any part of this ruling referring to rulemaking. The "restrictions" involved seem to stem from the Constitution itself. The only use of the word "arbitrary" occurs two words away from "First Amendment". What am I missing?
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  You're missing the statement right at the start: "Procedural due process" This is an admin law case (it's also a constitutional case too, so don't feel like that's not a key element and that you missed out - both theories are being analyzed in tandem). Edit: Keenan's portion of the judgement is almost all admin law discussion.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Isn't "procedural due process" a basic constitutional law term? Having to due with the procedures the government uses to make decisions, rather than the "substantive" due process stemming from a specific right you have under the law? Help me understand where you're coming from. Also, help me to this "arbitrary and capricious" standard you're saying applies here under administrative law. Is it your argument that someone who doesn't work for an agency under powers delegated by a legislature (say: the President, or a Governor) wouldn't be held to these standards? That doesn't sound right at all.
    - ABCLAW 8y ago
      Took a while to be able to reply! Some constitutional law is also administrative law. Much in the same way that constitutional law can also be part of the law of contracts or part of the law of torts. Administrative law is the law relating to government due process. The overarching 'bucket' of theory we ascribe to a discussion is purely out of convenience, but the core principles animating the discussion in this case are at the heart of administrative law, hence the use of the term. We could say this ruling was "Social Media Law" and be correct (and this term and grouping would be interesting in certain contexts, too!). In regards to the standard, arbitrary and capricious is a term of art regarding decision-making, referring to some of the worst possible government behavior. Without getting into the details of how admin law works, let's just say arbitrary and capricious behaviour - the hallmark of tyrants - is the big bad that administrative law aims to battle against. The term also refers to a standard of review, but that's more an indication of deference - that the courts won't fight against decisions they don't feel competent to deal with unless they're that bad. To answer the second portion of your question, the limitation on the scope of admin law is government, not the legislature and it's devolved structures. If I had to bet, I'd say the most common use of administrative law falls purely within the judiciary, as all appeals are all functionally administrative reviews of a prior decision.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I'm looking at syllabi for "Administrative Law" right now, and for instance at the University of Michigan, as top-level "sections", the course breaks down to: 1. what a government agency is 2. administrative adjudication (due process is a sub-bullet under here) 3. rulemaking 4. when and how rulemaking and adjudication is exposed to Article III judicial review 5. the scope of judicial review for administrative actions 6. how agencies relate to the executive Under that rubric, this doesn't look like an "administrative law" dispute except that it involves "due process", but then, if that makes something "administrative law", wouldn't lots of cases that aren't conventionally understood as admin law cases be admin law cases? On the other hand, there are no ALJs involved here, no county agency rule was drafted determining how Facebook was to be moderated, no question came up as to whether the County Supervisor's moderation was an exercise of powers granted to executive agencies explicitly by the Louisiana Constitution (do they have one? or is it all still French law there?), &c &c. I'm nerding out here, if it isn't clear; I don't think this debate is vital the the outcome of thread. :)

by ABCLAW 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

Administrative law? I don't see any part of this ruling referring to rulemaking. The "restrictions" involved seem to stem from the Constitution itself. The only use of the word "arbitrary" occurs two words away from "First Amendment". What am I missing?

ABCLAW 8y ago
You're missing the statement right at the start: "Procedural due process" This is an admin law case (it's also a constitutional case too, so don't feel like that's not a key element and that you missed out - both theories are being analyzed in tandem). Edit: Keenan's portion of the judgement is almost all admin law discussion.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Isn't "procedural due process" a basic constitutional law term? Having to due with the procedures the government uses to make decisions, rather than the "substantive" due process stemming from a specific right you have under the law? Help me understand where you're coming from. Also, help me to this "arbitrary and capricious" standard you're saying applies here under administrative law. Is it your argument that someone who doesn't work for an agency under powers delegated by a legislature (say: the President, or a Governor) wouldn't be held to these standards? That doesn't sound right at all.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    Took a while to be able to reply! Some constitutional law is also administrative law. Much in the same way that constitutional law can also be part of the law of contracts or part of the law of torts. Administrative law is the law relating to government due process. The overarching 'bucket' of theory we ascribe to a discussion is purely out of convenience, but the core principles animating the discussion in this case are at the heart of administrative law, hence the use of the term. We could say this ruling was "Social Media Law" and be correct (and this term and grouping would be interesting in certain contexts, too!). In regards to the standard, arbitrary and capricious is a term of art regarding decision-making, referring to some of the worst possible government behavior. Without getting into the details of how admin law works, let's just say arbitrary and capricious behaviour - the hallmark of tyrants - is the big bad that administrative law aims to battle against. The term also refers to a standard of review, but that's more an indication of deference - that the courts won't fight against decisions they don't feel competent to deal with unless they're that bad. To answer the second portion of your question, the limitation on the scope of admin law is government, not the legislature and it's devolved structures. If I had to bet, I'd say the most common use of administrative law falls purely within the judiciary, as all appeals are all functionally administrative reviews of a prior decision.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      I'm looking at syllabi for "Administrative Law" right now, and for instance at the University of Michigan, as top-level "sections", the course breaks down to: 1. what a government agency is 2. administrative adjudication (due process is a sub-bullet under here) 3. rulemaking 4. when and how rulemaking and adjudication is exposed to Article III judicial review 5. the scope of judicial review for administrative actions 6. how agencies relate to the executive Under that rubric, this doesn't look like an "administrative law" dispute except that it involves "due process", but then, if that makes something "administrative law", wouldn't lots of cases that aren't conventionally understood as admin law cases be admin law cases? On the other hand, there are no ALJs involved here, no county agency rule was drafted determining how Facebook was to be moderated, no question came up as to whether the County Supervisor's moderation was an exercise of powers granted to executive agencies explicitly by the Louisiana Constitution (do they have one? or is it all still French law there?), &c &c. I'm nerding out here, if it isn't clear; I don't think this debate is vital the the outcome of thread. :)